MAMCHAND,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(4), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3006/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 February 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2009-10. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing sufficient opportunity for hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether the proceedings under Section 147/148 and penalty under Section 271(1)(c) were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, Advocate &, Shri Vinay Verma, Advocate

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Ghaziabad dated 30.11.2018 & 31.12.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 in quantum appeal as well as in penalty appeal. Since both the appeals were relating to same assessment year, hence, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The grounds raised in (AY 2009-10) read as under:-

1. That the order passed by the revenue authorities are against natural justice giving no adequate opportunity to the assessee, confirming the addition.

2. That the order of the AO u/s. 144 of the Act and order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal being barred by limitation on account of delay of 6 days deserved to be set aside.

3.

That the proceedings u/s. 147/148 applied to the case are bad in law. 4. That even on merits no capital gain is leviable as the land sold is agricultural. 5. That the appellant craves leave to modify/ amend or add any one or more grounds. 3. The grounds raised in (AY 2009-10) read as under:-

1.

That the revenue authorities erred both on facts and in law imposing a penalty of Rs. 12945000 u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.

2.

That no penalty is leviable as the notice u/s. 274 read with section 271 dated 10.11.2016 is bad in law for want of specific charge against the assessee. 3. That even otherwise penalty has been levied by both authorities without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. That the penalty is not leviable as no tax is due because no capital gain is attracted as the asset sold is agricultural land. 5. That the appellant craves leave to modify/ amend or add any one or more grounds.

4.

At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that in both the appeals Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte impugned orders without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He requested that the issues in dispute in both the appeals, may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being herd to the assessee in both the appeals. 6.1 Keeping in view of the non-cooperation of the assessee, I am directing the assessee through his counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 27.04.2020 at 10.00 am for hearing. There is no need to issue the notice by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, since this order has already been pronounced in the open court. 7. In the result, both the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced on 19.02.2020. Sd/-

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →